Should the small maps be required to be smaller like many of the older maps are?

natty dread wrote:I keep trying to explain but no one seems to get it...

Bitmaps cannot be scaled infinitely. Monitors have finite resolution. If a map is made into a certain size, you can't just arbitrarily say "make it smaller", because it doesn't work that way. If you don't care about the quality or readability of the image, just zoom out in your browser, that will solve your problem.

Secondly, it's pretty damn selfish to demand that large maps should be banned just because they don't fit your monitor. No one forces you to play any map you don't want to play, why not stick to the maps you like and let others play maps they like! Don't restrict other people's map preferences just because you don't want to play the maps they like... like I said, there's plenty of small maps to choose from.

dwilhelmi wrote:I think that, in this case, there is not a lot that could be done to reduce the size any further. In which case, what would the solution be? Not allow this map, or any other map that couldn't be made smaller? I don't think that is the right solution.

Maybe a better solution would be to try to get Lack to add some sort of option for random games to not allow oversized maps? Dunno.

This guys is on the right track. We need constructive solutions, not destructive ones - treat the cause, not the symptom.

ljex wrote:Trafulgar is about as high of a map as i would like to see vertically and no map has ever not fit horizontally so that is not an issue for the moment.

Ever try fullscreen mode? You can toggle it from F11 in firefox...

Trafalgar is only a bit above 700 pixels - large map... hell, the regular map limit is 800 pixels for the large - there's no way maps should be limited to that height. I mean, you can get a 1050-1080 px monitor for less than $100 these days so there's really no excuse for limiting the height under 1000px.

I did not know about full screen capabilities i will use that from now on when playing certain maps.

My point is that the regions dont need to be that big, look at the hive map...it is more regions in way less space. I dont mind scrolling a little bit but at the point half the map can fit on my screen that is annoying. Why cant you have the images that define the region type be smaller or even behind the troop's?

I understand that you as a map maker with someone who is most likely very technologically advanced with the things you own think this is great. All i am saying is that its annoying to some people. I don't see why you feel the need to get so aggravated and insult other players. Im not coming here to say that there is zero reason to make a map this size, im saying that i dont see why this map has to be this big and that it is annoying to me and clearly others.

I't demanding anything, im merely suggesting that not all users like these large maps. In the end ill still play them even if they are big it will just be annoying every time i do.

Oh and sure i could not play the maps but that is like me saying you could not design maps that are so big...both are options, that is clearly not a good solution though. I would much rather find a solution that makes everyone happy in all aspects.

the buy a monitor thing...not everyone has $50 to spend on a monitor. for me i dont want to have to use a monitor for my laptop which i would then need a keyboard and stuff like that to be able to be able to fit it on my deck and see the monitor.

the zoom out if you dont care about quality...already told you that causes problems with clickable maps which makes that not an option

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you...really.Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have.

Me and commander62890 my roommate, have actually talked about this multiple times. We both frequented the foundry for a bit and while i was more of just an observer he actively posted suggestions for maps. Mostly revolving around how to make certain maps better team game play. I dont know the specifics on what maps he did this for but i can say the map makers basically disregarded his opinions and said it wasnt going to happen. Nothing wrong with that at face value, but it discourages people from posting if their opinion is not going to matter. I know after he told me about those incidents even if i saw something that would make a map better i probably wouldnt even bother to go post about it due to the belief that it would just get shoved aside by the map maker.

ljex wrote: I dont know the specifics on what maps he did this for but i can say the map makers basically disregarded his opinions and said it wasnt going to happen.

Well, I don't know the specifics but I can see two reasons for this -

#1 - if a user comes late in the process to comment on maps, when the map is already in beta, the mapmaker is much less likely to make huge changes than if the comment comes earlier in the process

#2 - mapmakers have to consider multiple perspectives, not just your favorite game type - if someone comes in and says "this map sucks at 2v2 adjacent nuclear foggy, now make these 300 changes" the mapmaker would be an idiot if he just blindly followed the suggestion without considering it's impact on all the other game types

So basically, if you want to join the discussion and give suggestions, go nuts... but don't expect that all your suggestions should be accepted without question - you need to be willing to engage in discussion and even debate and not get offended if the mapmaker has reasons why he doesn't want to implement your suggestion.

Dukasaur wrote:King's Court 2 is a perfect example. It's insane that the "small" map won't fit on the screen, even vertically. And yes, the labels are almost unreadable, but there's no reason they have to be. There's tons of unused space in each hex, so why do the labels only fill the top quarter of the hex, instead of the whole top half? The old Avalon Hill tabletop wargames were built with small hexes also, but there weren't huge gobs of wasted space in a hex, if the label needed to fill the whole thing, it did. If the font on KC2 was doubled relative to the map hex, the map could be shrunk down by 30% in each dimension while still making the *actual* size of the labels larger and more readable.

To preserve readability of all features/icons, region names (with a decent font size) and still fit those army numbers that not so rarely climb up to 3 figures, I couldn't make the hexes smaller than they are on the small version. And that's a fact. The space used for the legend couldn't be smaller as well, that font was reduced to the limit as far as I'm concerned.

Of course I could have made the map smaller with less hexes/regions, with less features, with simpler gameplay dynamics thus reducing the legend space, with smaller distances between Castles and probably with less Castles/Starting points. But that just wouldn't be that map...

I promise my next map will be much smaller, bordering tiny. I might have to ask for a new stamp, for tiny-size maps

ljex wrote: I dont know the specifics on what maps he did this for but i can say the map makers basically disregarded his opinions and said it wasnt going to happen.

Well, I don't know the specifics but I can see two reasons for this -

#1 - if a user comes late in the process to comment on maps, when the map is already in beta, the mapmaker is much less likely to make huge changes than if the comment comes earlier in the process

#2 - mapmakers have to consider multiple perspectives, not just your favorite game type - if someone comes in and says "this map sucks at 2v2 adjacent nuclear foggy, now make these 300 changes" the mapmaker would be an idiot if he just blindly followed the suggestion without considering it's impact on all the other game types

So basically, if you want to join the discussion and give suggestions, go nuts... but don't expect that all your suggestions should be accepted without question - you need to be willing to engage in discussion and even debate and not get offended if the mapmaker has reasons why he doesn't want to implement your suggestion.

It's not about the suggestion being denied its about the way in which it is denied.

Also natty, you seem rather abrasive recently to anyone who you are engaged in a discussion with. It only serves to deteriorate the value that can be gained from a conversation where people are looking for solutions instead of saying the other party is wrong which you have done about people saying the map is too big no less than 5 times that I have seen in various threads now.

While I'm sure you have no issues with the huge map, clearly it is annoying for more than one person.

I would suggest that maybe we approach lack about making it that regions don't need to have to be able to fit 3 digits worth of troops on them. Lets be honest, how often does that really happen? Beyond that when it does, is it really that big of a deal when it overlaps into another region? I personally don't think so but maybe if we change that new people would come and complain about that.

Another option is to make maps wider instead of taller. If kings court was the same amount of total pixels and just wider i would personally would be able to see it just fine. Then again maybe there are restrictions on that or maybe it would have made the design process too complicated. I'm not really sure what the specifications are on that matter either.

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you...really.Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have.

Thank you for doing your best to be helpful in a rather helpless situation. Its nice to see someone trying to listen to concerns and come up with solutions that can benefit the site and the community as a whole.

Acceptable Map: Chicago (attack bar doesn't fit on same screen as the map, but at least the entire map fits, so I can get a complete strategic overview. Still have to scroll down to attack, but I can live with that.)

Too large map: Antarctica (no matter how I centre the screen, some part of the map is always off the screen. And of course I can [CTRL]wheel to zoom out, but then I have to really squint to see the numbers.)

Ok first of all Antarctica isn't even supersize. It's within the regular size limits. The small map of Antarctica is 630x600 and you're saying that doesn't fit in your screen? Seriously?

This just goes to show people will complain no matter what size limits we set, no matter how small/large we make the maps there's always someone who whines "but it doesn't fit in my 1986 CGA display!"

ljex wrote:While I'm sure you have no issues with the huge map, clearly it is annoying for more than one person.

Yeah, people like different things. I'm really annoyed by several maps, like Madness, Chinese Checkers, or Conquer Man, to name a few. But if there's people who like them I'm not going to tell them that they shouldn't get to play the kind of maps they like, just because I don't like them.

ljex wrote:I would suggest that maybe we approach lack about making it that regions don't need to have to be able to fit 3 digits worth of troops on them. Lets be honest, how often does that really happen?

koontz1973 wrote:Do small maps really need the large map size of 840/800?

Yes they do. We don't only need 2 map sizes because some have smaller monitors - it goes the other way around too, some have larger resolutions so that really small maps are hard to play on.

Why, my laptop has a far higher resolution than my desk PC and I still play on the small map only. Doodle Earth with its 18 territs looks stupid in the large map setting. There is just so much wasted space there. Same can also be said Luxembourg. Both of these maps could easily accommodate a smaller small map with the current small map being made the large. It is easily compatible with higher resolution screen and then easier to be played on with the modern tech like phones and tablets. Either that, or a third map should be made for the modern tech.

koontz1973 wrote:Do small maps really need the large map size of 840/800?

Yes they do. We don't only need 2 map sizes because some have smaller monitors - it goes the other way around too, some have larger resolutions so that really small maps are hard to play on.

Why, my laptop has a far higher resolution than my desk PC and I still play on the small map only. Doodle Earth with its 18 territs looks stupid in the large map setting. There is just so much wasted space there. Same can also be said Luxembourg. Both of these maps could easily accommodate a smaller small map with the current small map being made the large. It is easily compatible with higher resolution screen and then easier to be played on with the modern tech like phones and tablets. Either that, or a third map should be made for the modern tech.

natty dread wrote:Ok you may have that experience but everyone else is not you.

And for that I am grateful. Imagine a world of only me. Utopia gets boring as well.

But the point is, like most people on this site, my experience counts. I have a large high res screen and a small low res one. When playing on the low res one, the small map takes up all of the screen and then some but I would not force map makers to make a smaller map just for me. And on the large one, the large maps look great but I still play the small map only. I am not asking for smaller small maps, but maps that while still look good in high res, can be played on even smaller screens. The two examples I gave are both maps that could easily accommodate a smaller small map.

A large map like Kings Court 2, Mega USA (if it is finished) make good use of the space they are given. Doodle does not.

Ok, let's separate two concepts which are often cofused/conflated when talking about display devices: "Resolution" is used to refer to both the total amount of pixels on a screen, and the amount of pixels per area (pixels per inch/centimeter/etc). When I speak of high resolution monitors I mean the latter definition, which is also called "pixel density".

So on a low resolution monitor a certain map image could be 20x20 cm, while on a high resolution monitor the same image could be 10x10 cm, regardless of the actual size of the monitor, or how much space the map takes in relative terms. Taking in account that not everyone has a good eyesight, it's only sensible to offer a larger image for all maps.

Nobodies;I think a map gets too big when the small size of a map is the size of a "normal" large size map. 840/800 px. That's when a lot of people who only play games using the small map thinks the map is too big. I've heard Andy always uses the small version when he plays games so he's probably as good of an advisor on this as you'll find. I use large size on all maps except Kings Court II and Africa II but I'm mostly in front of a very small widescreen so my screen is pretty weird. When I'm using my mac laptop though, all maps are too big !

I think the gap of knowledge between ordinary players and experienced map makers is part of why so many chose to not bother with the foundry. It's always hard to come in to a place where you are so far behind in terms of experience and knowledge. Especially if the map maker fails to respond politely to your opinions.It gets a lot easier after some time in the foundry but many leave before they get any insight into how it works.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you...really.Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have.

Thank you sir I have decided to try and check in more... the issue is I don't have time to try and comment on all the maps being worked on, so when I comment its usually on my concept after being able to play it as I am a player... not a map maker. And until I can play it I don't know how it effects me, but I guess I can try and check in earlier as that is the issue I currently have now, si more visual. Is there anyway to create more subforums for maps at different steps? so we know which ones are SERIOUSLY moving forward?

Gillipig wrote:I think a map gets too big when the small size of a map is the size of a "normal" large size map. 840/800 px.

Yeah then we could just as well not have supersize...

Well to an extent supersize does present some problems. Not so much because of the large version but because of the small version. It's not small enough to work on many of the smaller screens. I feel like the small version absolutely mustn't be more than 900 px in either height or width. I suggest we let the current maps that are bigger than that be but set a hard upper limit for future maps! Maps don't get better just because they get bigger, and having tons of huge maps that a lot of players have a difficult time surveying isn't good for the site.I don't know how far you guys have come with the World 3.0 map or how big the large/small version will be but it could always be counted as an exception to this rule. It's important that we're not being cluttered by these maps though. Some is okay but not too many.

swimmerdude99 wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not trying to argue with you...really.Just trying to say that if all the people that today is posting in the kabanellas map topic asking for a smaller map had checked the map thread when the KC2 map was in the production it would have been easier for Kabanellas to change the map accordingly the players suggestion than now,when he has basically finished his job, just because the map threads are checked by mapmakers only. And mapmakers care more about the art than the playing aspects.As said it wasn't a comment against you, but more about the different perspective foundry goers and players have.

Thank you sir I have decided to try and check in more... the issue is I don't have time to try and comment on all the maps being worked on, so when I comment its usually on my concept after being able to play it as I am a player... not a map maker. And until I can play it I don't know how it effects me, but I guess I can try and check in earlier as that is the issue I currently have now, si more visual. Is there anyway to create more subforums for maps at different steps? so we know which ones are SERIOUSLY moving forward?

Hi bud ,try to get in early in the map making stage. That's when the map maker is most open minded and are most likely to listen to your suggestions. So go to the drafting room instead of the Final Forge. I find it very hard to come up with something meaningful to say in the Final Forge myself and that's because it's an almost finished product.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Gillipig wrote:Well to an extent supersize does present some problems. Not so much because of the large version but because of the small version. It's not small enough to work on many of the smaller screens. I feel like the small version absolutely mustn't be more than 900 px in either height or width.

Ok so because your monitor is small you would deny large maps from everyone? "If I can't play them, no one can"?

So selfish.

I don't really get why people are screaming for some kind of hard limit to map sizes. No one's forcing you to play all the maps on the site! It's a choice!

Gillipig wrote:Well to an extent supersize does present some problems. Not so much because of the large version but because of the small version. It's not small enough to work on many of the smaller screens. I feel like the small version absolutely mustn't be more than 900 px in either height or width.

Ok so because your monitor is small you would deny large maps from everyone? "If I can't play them, no one can"?

So selfish.

I don't really get why people are screaming for some kind of hard limit to map sizes. No one's forcing you to play all the maps on the site! It's a choice!

There is an advantage of reading the posts you comment on natty. In a previous post that you commented on I said the only maps that I use the small version on is Kings Court II and Africa II. And when I use the small version on those maps it works well for me. So the reason I suggest an upper limit is not because I'm having problems with it myself. It's because I take into consideration those who have small screens like a laptop or just a standard small screen. So I was not being selfish. You however are selfish because all you care about is to have as few size restrictions as possible so that you can make the maps you want! And the players on small screens who will have to zoom out all the time and squint to see the text will just have to deal with it because you want to make mega maps.THAT is selfish!

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Now that that's solved, I think I'll go play a game of First Nations Americas on my phone.

Looks like that's not going to work very well. I know - I'll just try to get a requirement that all maps must be sized to work on my phone.

Hmmm... that doesn't work either. Maybe I just shouldn't play some maps if they don't work well on my screen, and let people make whatever maps they want to make...

Nah, I think I'll try to prevent large maps from being created in the first place. if I can't play them, no one should.

And not to threadjack, but did no one notice this:

swimmerdude99 wrote:... the issue is I don't have time to try and comment on all the maps being worked on, so when I comment its usually on my concept after being able to play it as I am a player... not a map maker. And until I can play it I don't know how it effects me...

If you want more people to take an interest in the foundry, you have to let them play the maps in development.